"The proposed approach combines a wealth of forensic, design, analytical modelling and experimentation expertise of the partners involved, deployed to scrutinize and review the available evidence, to synthesise this into loss hypotheses, to test these hypotheses through first-principles modelling studies, and to finally demonstrate the established scenario of the loss through a physical experiment and through virtual modelling and simulation."

Anders Björkman responds to SSPA:

Thank you for your invitation to provide information of the sinking sequence of the MV Estonia. I have already done it to many consortia members but for the benefit of cc: I will repeat.

My information is available since 2001 at :
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/disasterinvestigation.htm
and at associated web pages. You are kindly requested to use that information and to link to it on your web site. (Since 1999 originally in Swedish at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/katastrofutredning.htm ). I have also written a book about the accident investigation, Lies and Truths about the M/V Estonia accident that is available on the Internet.

 he overall goal of the study is to understand the sequence and explain the underlying causes of the loss of MV Estonia and to review available evidence pertaining to the loss.

Any information provided will be carefully considered by the research consortium, lead by SSPA Sweden. I look forward to your comments about my information. All my facts can be proven. You should then be aware of the high probability that all essential official information provided by JAIC, the Swedish Accident Investigation Board (SHK), the Swedish Board of Psychological Defence (SPF) and the Swedish National Maritime Administration (Sjöfartsverket) about the accident is or may have been edited, manipulated and falsified to suit all suggested false sub-causes of one accident. To do a proper study now you must check all input yourself again.

Evidently the vessel was not seaworthy at the departure: it lacked correct certificates, the watertight subdivision, LSA and evacuation procedures, etc. were not as per SOLAS with full knowledge of the Swedish NMA. This did not cause the accident but allowed the vessel to sink quickly with great loss of life. The cause of accident is not proven and how and why the ship sank has never been demonstrated.

The official events prior to the accident (alleged loss of visor) cannot be correct. Anybody who has been at sea on a ferry in severe weather experiencing impacts against the fore body knows that they are very noisy BANGS causing vibrations. You must slow down and/or change course. Available evidence does not support the JAIC allegation that the vessel suffered several wave impacts on the visor before structure was damaged and the superstructure was loaded with water.

The SSPA model tests carried out 1995 supporting the JAIC’s suggestion of bow impacts appear to be incorrect. There is no way that there were any wave impacts on the Estonia visor in the alleged conditions (B7, 4.2 m waves, 15 knots, etc). The visor was hardly submerged in that weather! See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/eapp2.htm

The events about the loss of the visor can also not be correct. Visor locks and hinges, superstructure steel items (deck plates and beams, bulkhead plates) being ripped apart and an inner ramp being pulled open, etc. without anybody hearing anything is not possible. All official information about these events is false. No correct evidence evidently exists. See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunkt31.htm and following pages.

The events about loading water inside the superstructure >2.5 m above waterline after the ramp was allegedly open are likewise manipulated. The official calculations of water inflow rates are wrong. See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/eapp4.htm

All official stability calculations with water loaded inside the superstructure are also wrong (the underwater hull is assumed undamaged). The water is considered a frozen weight (ice!) that does not trim the vessel …. and never flows out. See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunkt217.htm and http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunkt19.htm

All official events after the alleged loss of the visor about stability and buoyancy are thus manipulated.

The official sequence of events (figure 13.2 in the Final report) after loss of visor is thus falsification. It just shows an undamaged ship tuning/drifting using 100% false data by one of cc. It is easy to show by re-making the plot.

Actually – if the vessel had not capsized within one or two minutes due to water inside the superstructure with open bow ramp, all the water inside the superstructure would have flown out by itself the same way it came in, as soon as the vessel had stopped and turned away from the waves and capsize had been avoided.

The official JAIC proposal that more water is loaded inside the superstructure after vessel turning away from the waves and stopping and that the vessel drifted with 2.2 knots while sinking is preposterous.

I assume that the events just before and after the vessel started to load water in the superstructure http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunkt319.htm will be included in the study, but I repeat and summarize them anyway and add some advice to prove the suggestions:

What was the one and only proximate cause of the sinking of MV Estonia?

That is the question! The MV Estonia was doing 15 knots heading into 4.2 meters waves with a large relative motion forward for 30 minutes before the accident. The MV Estonia superstructure bow flare was allegedly struck every three minutes by heavy 350-700-1000 tons wave impacts that nobody heard (no action taken on the bridge, eg slow down). It is not possible!

Full scale tests

You are recommended to test this in full scale on any ferry yourselves. It is very simple. Just ask the Master to head at full speed into heavy waves and notice the first wave impact. You cannot avoid hearing the BANG, feeling the VIBRATIONS in the structure and seeing the BIG SPLASH. Ask yourself if the MV Estonia crew was deaf, etc. allowing the following to happen:

Then various steel structure parts in the MV Estonia superstructure were damaged 10 meters forward of the bridge during at least 10-20 minutes: the visor side (deck 3) and bottom locks (main deck) were ripped off due to wave impacts, the visor moved up-down and damaged its bottom and the ship's main deck due to waves and relative motion, the visor lifting arms were ripped apart at the deck hinges on deck 4 due to wave impacts, the lifting hydraulic foundations were also ripped apart (deck 3) due to wave impacts, the hydraulic pistons and lugs then cut the deck 4 steel plate and a strong deck steel beam web and flange and the visor started to hit against the ramp protecting the superstructure, all ramp hooks and locks were ripped apart, etc.

You are kindly recommended to verify the damages and ask yourselves how they could develop during 10-20 minutes without being noticed by anybody - except as alleged noise from the bow.

Then the visor allegedly fell off (time is 01.14/15 hrs) and the ramp was fully open - the open ramp top was then below the waterline and the forward speed was 14-15 knots. Water could enter into the superstructure 2.5 meters above waterline, when the MV Estonia with forward speed pitched the ramp opening below the waves and the water was pushed up and in. There is no evidence for this - three crewmembers in the ECR saw the ramp closed at 01.17 hrs, but assume that they are lying (they had of course escaped from the ECR at that time – http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunk148.htm - after having started the bilge pumps as they were standing in water to their knees in the engine room).

So water started to be loaded on the MV Estonia superstructure car deck (deck 2) and the water ended up inside on starboard side and listed the vessel slowly according to the JAIC. Then the MV Estonia turned 180° port and stopped with the opening away from the waves. There was no capsize (GZ<0, vessel floating upside down) that you would expect with 1 900+ tonnes of water in the superstructure side (ignoring or considering also trim, as you like) so less than 1 900 tons of water were loaded. You would now expect most water in the superstructure to flow out again through the opening in the bow and the vessel to upright. Evidently no more water could enter through the bow opening at this time as it was high above the waterline and the speed was zero! Do you agree?

Basic errors in the JAIC proposals

If you agree, you must conclude that there are some basic errors in the JAIC analysis and evidence of the MV Estonia accident that you are supposed to base your research study on.  

Then (01.20 hrs) the MV Estonia started to sink according JAIC- and maybe you will just concentrate on that in your study? The time is 01.20 hrs and the ferry is more than a mile from the position of sinking after 01.54 hrs. So the MV Estonia was drifting at >2 knots speed while sinking. Do you believe that? See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunkt19.htm . I do not believe that!

Anyway - the MV Estonia was sinking. The hull below deck 2 is undamaged all the time according JAIC. All watertight doors are closed at 01.20 hrs (not proven). Most water in the superstructure should now flow out through the bow opening (easy to verify by model tests) and only a little water should remain due to the original stern trim, and this water should flow out through the scuppers. There is no way that more water can enter the superstructure at this time (01.20 hrs) with the bow in lee and speed away from the waves and you should expect the MV Estonia to upright due to the buoyancy of the hull. 

But in order for MV Estonia to sink you must now flood at least three, four or five watertight and undamaged hull compartments after which the bulkhead deck comes under water and all the other compartments fill up. How could it take place? I will tell you – and it will show that the JAIC scenario is an invention.

Model tests!

Primo - start to verify the model in calm weather and closed ramp with 0.5 meter stern trim as per MV Estonia original loading condition at zero speed. Car deck is full of trucks and cars. This is fun! Load water on deck 2 (car deck) just by filling the compartment with a hose from above and observe what happens (the ramp is closed); vessel lists and trims more on stern, with 1900 tons of extra water on the car deck (among all the trucks and cars) model turns upside down. Capsize. Evidently the vessel does not float on the deck house decks 4-9 (doors are open aft on deck 4, 5 and 6 and in the side of deck 7, the windows are broken when coming below water) that is flooded completely immediately.

Secondo - verify the model in calm weather and open ramp and zero speed. Load water on deck 2 with a hose and observe again what happens; vessel lists and trims again on stern and capsizes with 1900 tons of water on the car deck. The bow was high over water all times. Same result as first test.

Tertio - repeat the second test in heavy weather, open ramp with opening away from the waves, zero speed (the condition at 01.20 hrs); fill the superstructure with a hose but due to vessel pitching (>trim), you will find that the water flows and sloshes forward and back on the car deck and out through the bow opening in spite of original stern trim. Interesting! The sloshing is in reality very noisy.

Recommendation - when you visit a ferry in heavy weather to check the bow impacts, also put 50 tons of water on the car deck and listen to it sloshing around. 

Fourth - open ramp down below waterline, forward speed 14 knots into 4.2 m irregular waves, big relative motion forward (no change of heading during test); after 10-20 pitching movements (1-2 minutes) up/down vessel trims on the bow, stops and capsizes quickly.

Fifth - like four but with a 180° change of course prior to capsize; vessel lists but after change of heading we are back to test 3 - and the water flows out through the bow opening due to the pitching. No capsize!

Six - repeat two but prevent the vessel from capsizing (cheating a little by using an outside support) and allow the model to trim on stern only due to the water in the superstructure until the first opening on deck 4 (apart from the bow ramp deck 2-4) comes below water. What opening is first under water? Right - the aft vents on deck 4 into the superstructure below. You do not have to fill the superstructure anymore by hose - it fills itself. Release the support and see what happens! Capsize of course! All the water in the superstructure flows to the starboard side again and model turns upside down.

Seven - ask yourself how the clock on the bridge, starboard side deck 9, could stop at 01.36 hrs. Did it stop when it came under water? But the vessel didn't sink until 01.54!

Eight - like five but no water flows out through the bow opening for some reason at 01.20 hrs, no capsize takes place and the hull compartments are being flooded one way or another (you shall describe that) and the deck house decks 4-9 comes under water. The vessel is drifting at >2 knots for 35 minutes while sinking. How? How can a sinking ferry with increasing displacement drift so fast at constant speed?

Evidently the above model tests can also be simulated by mathematical models, etc.

You suggest:

The loss of MV Estonia has unravelled inherent weaknesses of ships with large undivided spaces when subject to hull damage

and

Contrary to traditional naval architecture calculus, MV Estonia maintained her function of a supporting platform for over half an hour, thus allowing a number of people to save their lives.

You have misunderstood the official findings. It only happens if you believe the official allegations. The vessel was not subject to any hull (base line to bulkhead deck no 2) damage!  According traditional naval architecture calculus the vessel could then not sink – only capsize/float upside down – with a certain amount of water loaded on top of deck 2 inside the superstructure large undivided space and with an intact hull.

The reason why MV Estonia took half an hour to sink was evidently due to flooding of hull spaces (deck 0-1). What caused the leakage = a small opening in the hull below waterline? Read my web site!

You ask:

What were the options available and the actions taken by the crew in terms of active measures to improve the stability (resistance to capsize) of the vessel? What was the role of the MV Estonia’s superstructure in preventing rapid capsizing?

Capsize of a ship with undamaged hull occurs when GZ<0 due to a heeling moment in turn due to unsymmetrical loading of extra weights. An intact, weather tight superstructure helps to maintain stability at large angles of heel. In the Estonia case the superstructure (decks 2-4) was open at the forward end and did not contribute to stability at large angles of heel (as will be shown in your model tests). The only option is to reduce the heeling moment. In case Estonia it would happen by itself when the vessel stopped and all water flowed out from the superstructure through the open ramp.  

The deck house (decks 4-9) on a ferry can never prevent rapid capsize. It is rightly considered not part of the water- (hull) or weather tight (superstructure) parts of the vessel contributing to intact stability. JAIC and its so called stability experts on the other hand suggest that the ferry floats on the deck house 9 meters above waterline, which is a dishonest proposal based on no evidence at all.

Bilge pumps

You should ask yourself why the crew started the bilge pumps before the ship suddenly listed. Bilge pumps? JAIC does not mention them with one word! Bilge pumps are normally started to get rid of water in the bilges on deck 0. Mr Sillaste started the bilge pumps – see http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunkt13.htm . Why did the JAIC change Sillates’s testimony that the bilge pumps were pumping deck 2 in the superstructure dry? The water in the superstructure would have flown out by itself at that time!

Good luck with your study. How are you going to ‘simulate’ the running bilge pumps?

Why a false accident investigation report?

If you ask why the JAIC produced a 100% false accident investigation report, the answer is that it was discretely told to do so by the Swedish government that is now paying for your study – to cover up the real cause of accident (leakage – probably due to collision) and that the vessel was 100% not seaworthy. Only a handful of persons were initially in the full picture. Later other persons were persuaded to participate … by not criticizing the preposterous official announcements and /or by producing false scientific and professional reports, etc. The media participated actively to support all false allegations. Critics were easy to silence in Sweden by threatening with loss of jobs and financial difficulties. So the whole Swedish shipping community shut up. Many thought it was a wonderful cover-up! They could in turn blackmail the Swedish authorities to allow exemptions from basic safety at sea for commercial reasons. You can evidently do the same thing! Invent results that support the JAIC findings!

Bad luck with your study. Do you really want to get involved in this study? The responsible people of the JAIC are not only immoral … they are criminals, participating in the cover up of a crime.

Kind regards

Anders Björkman

Heiwa Co – European Agency for Safety at Sea

6 rue Victor Hugo

F 06 240 Beausoleil – France

Tel - +336 61725424

                        M/S Estonia interior - Sauna      

                     See more pictures of Estonia's interior 
                                       (coming soon)